Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Nand Ram & Ors vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 7 May, 2019
In order to decide the above appeals, the facts are
being borrowed from Reference Petition No. 14-S/4 of 2006,
titled as, 'Rama Nand & others versus State of H.P. & others'.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka (D) By L.Rs vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 28 July, 2016
24. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are
seen, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka versus State of Maharashtra &
anr, reported in 2016 (14) SCC 279, the development charges
cannot be deducted, from the amount, which has been assessed,
as market value of the acquired land, prevailing at the time of
issuance of notification, under Section 4 of the Act, as no
development is required to be made for implementation of public
purpose, for which the land is acquired. Relevant paragraph of
the judgment is reproduced as under:
Mir Fazeelath Hussain And Ors vs Special Deputy Collector, Land ... on 15 May, 1992
"4. It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants, that there was no justification
whatsoever, for recording any deduction, specially when
there was no question of any internal or external
development, and as such, expenses of such developments
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2024 21:42:09 :::CIS
10
should not have been taken into consideration so as to grant
a deduction of 1/3rd of the amount. In order to substantiate
his above contention, learned counsel for the appellants has
referred to the decision in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul
Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. and others vs. Special Land
.
The Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Nookala Rajamallu And Ors. on 21 November, 2003
PW-2/A, the
market value of four biswas of land was Rs. 1,47,500/-,
however, it would not be proper to place reliance thereon.
Now, coming to the question that the sale instance Ext. PW-
1/A pertains to sale of small chunk, it would not be improper
to conclude that even the acquired land of various right
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2024 21:42:09 :::CIS
12
holders also was not in big chunks, however, area thereof is
also very small. The Apex Court in (2003) 12 Supreme Court
Cases 334 titled 'Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally,
Village Nizamabad District, A.P versus Nookala Rajamallu
and others' has held that the rates of small plots can only be
.